Elections

Allows California to borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, including rental housing, housing for veterans, supportive housing, preserving existing affordable housing and help with down payments.

The main tradeoff: More state money becomes available for housing programs, but California takes on new debt. The state estimates repayment would cost about $500 million to $600 million per year for roughly 25 years.

Changes California’s rules for saving money for future economic downturns. It would increase the amount the state can hold in its Rainy Day Fund and require extra debt payments for a longer period.

The main tradeoff: Larger state reserves for bad economic years versus keeping the current rules for how much California saves and pays toward debt.

California currently has higher income-tax rates on high-income earners. Those rates are scheduled to expire in 2031. Prop. 3 would make them permanent. The threshold currently begins above roughly $371,000 in individual income and adjusts for inflation.

The main tradeoff: California keeps an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion per year in state revenue, rather than allowing the temporary higher tax rates to expire.

California currently generally prohibits state and local governments from creating programs that give public money to candidates for their campaigns. Prop. 4 would remove that prohibition.

Money specifically set aside for education, transportation or public safety could not be used for these programs.

The main tradeoff: Governments get the option to publicly finance candidate campaigns versus keeping the current ban on those programs.

Right now, when California holds a recall election for a statewide official, voters can also vote during that election on who should replace the person if the recall succeeds.

Prop. 5 changes that.

The main tradeoff: Separate the decision to recall someone from the decision about the replacement versus continuing to make both decisions during the same election.

Creates a state program for certain middle-income Californians buying qualifying newly built homes.

California could issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds and provide eligible buyers with fixed-rate financing covering up to 17% of a home’s purchase price. Buyers would have income, residency, occupancy and down-payment requirements.

The homeowners’ loan payments — rather than the state’s General Fund — would repay the bonds.

The main tradeoff: A new state-administered financing program becomes available to qualifying homebuyers. The state’s fiscal analysis says the bonds would be repaid by participating homeowners and would have no direct state or local government cost.

Allows California to borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research — research involving the body’s immune system and diseases such as cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.

Half would go to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute and half to research grants for qualifying universities and institutions.

The main tradeoff: Billions of dollars become available for medical research, while the state takes on new debt. Estimated repayment is $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years, although some costs could eventually be offset if funded research produces revenue.

Changes the identification rules for voting in California.

For mail ballots, voters would have to put the last four digits of a designated government-issued identification number on the ballot envelope.

For in-person voting, voters would have to show government-issued identification.

The main tradeoff: Adds government-ID requirements to voting. The state estimates implementation would cost tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Creates a one-time state tax equal to 5% of net worth for certain people who had more than $1 billion in covered assets and were California residents on January 1, 2026.

Real estate, pensions and retirement accounts generally would not count toward the tax.

About 90% of the money would go to health care, with the remainder going to education, food assistance and administration.

The main tradeoff: The state estimates the tax could raise tens of billions of dollars temporarily, primarily for health care. The state also estimates behavioral changes, including some taxpayers potentially relocating, could reduce future income-tax revenue by less than $1 billion per year.

⚠️ See the note below about how Props 40, 41 and 42 interact.

Creates new auditing requirements when ballot initiatives propose special taxes — taxes whose money is dedicated to particular programs.

The State Auditor would review programs before certain tax initiatives reach the ballot and would conduct recurring audits of programs receiving money from new special taxes.

It also changes how some new special-tax spending interacts with California’s constitutional spending limit.

The main tradeoff: More required review and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes, along with additional government auditing costs. The state estimates audit costs would start in the low millions of dollars per year and grow over time, with many of those costs paid from the new tax revenue.

⚠️ See the note below about how Props 40, 41 and 42 interact.

Changes the California Constitution to prohibit new state taxes based simply on owning financial assets or other personal property, such as stocks, business interests and intellectual property.

It also restricts the state’s ability to create taxes that apply retroactively to things that happened before the tax took effect.

The main tradeoff: Limits future state taxing options versus leaving those options available to future voters and lawmakers.

⚠️ See the note below about how Props 40, 41 and 42 interact.

Some local special taxes placed on the ballot through voter signatures can currently pass with a simple majority — anything over 50%.

Beginning in 2027, Prop. 43 would require two-thirds approval for those voter-proposed local special taxes.

The main tradeoff: Requires broader voter support before certain local taxes can pass, which also makes those taxes harder to approve.

Requires certain nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on qualifying health-care/program services each year.

Clinics falling below the requirement could face financial penalties. Temporary waivers could be available in some circumstances.

The main tradeoff: Requires a larger share of clinic revenue to go toward qualifying health-care services, while reducing how much affected clinics can spend on other expenses such as administration. State enforcement is expected to cost the low tens of millions of dollars annually, paid through fees on affected clinics.

Changes California’s environmental-review law, CEQA, for many projects including housing, transportation, water, health care, wildfire prevention, schools, internet infrastructure and clean-energy projects.

It sets tighter deadlines for environmental reviews and lawsuits and limits some of what courts can consider when reviewing challenges.

The main tradeoff: Certain projects could move through environmental review and court challenges faster, but agencies and courts would have less time and, in some cases, a narrower scope of review. Initial government implementation costs are estimated in the high tens of millions of dollars annually and could exceed $100 million, partly offset by fees.

Creates a property parcel tax to pay for a fire-protection service agreement with the Bishop Fire Protection District or another legally authorized fire-service provider.

The tax can be:

• Developed parcel: Up to $500 per year
• Undeveloped parcel: Up to $250 per year

The rate could increase by up to 3.5% per year if that increase is part of the fire-service agreement.

The tax would begin July 1, 2027 and run until June 30, 2037, or end earlier if the service agreement ends.

Annual reports and verification of how the money was spent are required.

To pass: Two-thirds of voters voting on the measure.

The main tradeoff: Creates dedicated funding for contracted fire protection in exchange for an annual parcel tax. The rate can rise by up to 3.5% per year if the service contract includes that increase.

Source: Inyo County Elections official voter guide and Measure Y analysis.

Reinstates a previous $100-per-parcel annual tax for emergency-response services.

The previous tax expired. The new tax would begin July 1, 2027 and last 10 years.

It is expected to raise roughly $80,000 per year.

The money may be used for things including:

The money must go into a special Lone Pine Fire-Ambulance account and be used for the purposes listed in the measure.

To pass: Two-thirds of voters voting on the measure.

The main tradeoff: Provides a dedicated local revenue source for emergency response in exchange for a $100 annual tax on taxable parcels for 10 years.

Source: Inyo County Elections official voter guide and Measure Z analysis.

Allows the district to borrow $6 million to build and improve classrooms and career-technical education facilities at Coleville High School and Lee Vining High School.

Possible programs include engineering, science, automotive technology, welding, carpentry, agricultural mechanics and other skilled trades. Money may also be used for school safety and security improvements.

Property owners in the district would repay the bonds through property taxes estimated at about $19 for every $100,000 of assessed property value while the bonds are outstanding.

For example, $300,000 in assessed value would equal roughly $57 per year at that estimated rate.

To pass: 55% approval.

The main tradeoff: Provides borrowed money now for school facilities, career-training programs and safety improvements, while property owners repay the bonds over time through an additional property-tax charge.

Creates a replacement parcel tax of $99 per parcel per year for six years.

It is expected to raise approximately $1.1 million per year.

The money can support teacher recruitment and retention, smaller class sizes and programs including technology, art, music, math, science and athletics at Mammoth Elementary, Mammoth Middle, Mammoth High and Sierra High.

The measure includes audits, oversight, public spending disclosure and a senior exemption.

To pass: Two-thirds approval.

The main tradeoff: Provides six years of dedicated school funding in exchange for a $99 annual charge on taxable parcels that are not exempt.